Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Guillermo (1997)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 13 August 2010 [1].

Hurricane Guillermo (1997) edit

Hurricane Guillermo (1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk), Mitchazenia

Hurricane Guillermo of 1997 was one of the most powerful Pacific hurricanes ever recorded. At the time, it was regarded as the second strongest but has since dropped to sixth. It was also a long-loved storm, spanning 16.5 days as a tropical system, 24 days including its remnant phase and 36 days including the time it was a tropical wave. Prior to my edits on this, much work was done by Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) who brought the article up to GA status. Unlike most other hurricane articles, this storm lacks public advisories and discussions due to the National Hurricane Center having not archived them. Hope you enjoy the article and all thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment— the images need alt text. I have a couple of comments.
As far as I'm aware, alt text is no longer needed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Against what is generally accepted to occur with tropical cyclones at increasing latitudes," should be "Although tropcial cyclones ten to weaken at increasing latitudes,"

Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Between August 15 and 17, large waves generated while it was at peak intensity came ashore in Hawaii. The swells caused no damage and reached heights of 10 feet (3.0 m) in eastern-facing shores of the state.[6]" should be "While the storm was at peak intensity between August 15 and 17, large waves generated came ashore in Hawaii. The swells caused no damage, but reached heights of 10 feet (3.0 m) in eastern-facing shores of the state.[6] YE Tropical Cyclone

It wasn't at peak intensity between August 15 and 17, which is what the proposed sentence indicates. Also, the change to the second sentence has no real difference, it just reverses the order in which information is given. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, CB. Fair enough. I support YE Tropical Cyclone 18:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Great job with the MH. I know 1997 storms have the problem of lack of discussions (unlike any other season from 1988 to the present in the basin). I do have a slight objection to using Unisys to say something that isn't obvious even to me. You say how it "was thought to have briefly leveled out in intensity on August 2". Without discussions, or the NHC saying something like that directly, I really don't think that should be in the article, since you can't prove it.
    • Unisys gets their data directly from the NHC and HURDAT. All their data is completely valid, I'm not sure why you think it's not able to be used. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I was misreading it before, I thought you were saying something more (other than just "operationally it was thought to have stopped intensifying"). I think the sentence in question is a minor detail, but if you want to keep it, that's fine. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some other comments.
    • In the lede, you mention what direction it moved before giving any semblance where it formed - be sure to include location.
    • Along Baja California, the waves swept two people out to see, killing both and a third person drowned off the coast of California. - rather confusing and awkward. I recommend something like "Along the American Pacific coast, three people drowned due to high waves, two in Baja California and one in California".
    • "Initially disorganized and weak, minimal convection was associated with the system as it traversed the Atlantic Ocean" - I think this is poorly worded, especially for how unimportant the sentence is. Make it simpler.
    • In the MH, maybe include a few definitions, so people unfamiliar with hurricanes can get better context. For example, convection (how it's roughly synonymous with thunderstorms), "central dense overcast" (maybe do more than just link it), and "streamline phase of rapid intensification".
      • Explained the first two a bit and reworded the third to make it simpler. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This indicated that maximum winds at the surface could be as high as 181 mph (291 km/h)" - fix the tense inconsistency
    • Why specifically did the hurricane weaken after peak intensity?
    • Similarly, why did it re-intensify to tropical storm status northeast of Hawaii?
    • It might be worth adding (for reader's interest) the location away from Alaska when it transitioned from tropical to extratropical.
    • Why did it move the way it did as an extratropical cyclone?
      • I haven't found anything that gives a reason for why it moved in the way it did as an extratropical system. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the second sentence of the impact section, try to reword so it doesn't start with a number. Sentences shouldn't generally start with numbers. Also, is there any reason it is "12-foot" and not "12 foot"? Additionally, watch out for rounding in that section. If the first number is rounded, then the converted unit must be rounded.
      • The |abbr=on wasn't placed in the template. I can't help the rounding and non-rounding though, that's how the template works. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Thesewas were considered a good by roughly 500 surfers as an annual competition at Huntington Beach was set to take place." - please fix, it's hurting my brain ;)
      • That's what happens when two trains of thought collide :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Hurricanehink (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Hink, I found it extremely useful. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, it's much better now. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I tried copyediting the impact section a bit, but after thinking about it some more, it's quite poorly organized. I get the feeling it largely repeats the same things (in particular, the high California surf) over and over again. What is currently presented in three bloated paragraphs could likely be comfortably summarized in one. Juliancolton (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on condensing it now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks :) Juliancolton (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met, up to the usual excellent standards of the hurricane people Fasach Nua (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - An excellent, enjoyable read. Some nitpicks:
  • After reaching an unusually high latitude of 41.8°N, the system finally transitioned into an extratropical cyclone. - obviously this refers to a latitude, but the wording seems off to me... I think "reaching an" should be replaced with "moved to", perhaps with more elegant wording.
  • Unlike most hurricanes in the eastern Pacific, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration flew two Hurricane Hunter aircraft into Guillermo during its rapid intensification stage. - Sentence needs work. The first clause doesn't fit into the second, it needs to be reorganized.
  • During their mission, several dropsondes were released into the storm to gather meteorological statistics on it.[3] - Nitpicking here, but I don't like that the sentence ends with on it; maybe to gather "its meteorological statistics"?
  • With light wind shear surrounding the hurricane, further strengthening was able to take place.[3] - Get the feeling that it should read "With just wind shear".
  • Late on August 2, the system had attained winds of 135 mph (215 km/h), making it a Category 4 storm. - For consistency, the had should be removed.
  • Steady weakening took place over the following several days, with the storm dropping below major hurricane status on August 6. - Remove the with.
  • Nice work. ceranthor 02:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Around this time, the storm had started to move along the western edge of the ridge that previously steered it towards the west-northwest, causing Guillermo to turn northwest - Remove the had
    Those should all have been taken care of. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a nice little article. Just one comment, which doesn't detract from my support:

  • Opening sentence - I'm feeling uncomfortable about this sentence, since it makes it sound like Guillermo has been surpassed as the 6th largest storm. However, I have no real ideas about how to reword it right now, so I'll just continue mulling...

Nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Throughout the lead, the majority of the sentences start with a clause, which almost reads like a list after a while. Rewording a few of the sentences would help to add some variety and improve the flow of the lead.
  • "This mission marked the first time since the installment of the Hurricane Hunters that high-resolution wind data was recorded from flight level all the way down to within several meters of the ocean surface within the eyewall of a major hurricane." Could this be reworded to remove the double use of "within"? Also, "the installment of the Hurricane Hunters" phrasing could just be reduced to "the first time the Hurricane Hunters recorded high-resolution..."
  • We probably could lose the wikilink to California in the last paragraph of the "Meteorological history" section.
  • "however, this was not used as the reported intensity as six to twelve hour averages indicated..." Should it be "six- to twelve-hour averages"?

Nothing else pops out, so I'll have no issues with supporting when the above points have been addressed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay in getting to this; I seem to get distracted very easily. I believe I've now addressed all of your comments. Thanks for the review Nehrams2020. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, there's so much to do on here. I went through the lead and reworded the sentences a bit to give it some more variety, please review my edits to make sure no errors were made. Good work on the article, I'm happy to support. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Guillermo_(1997)/archive1&oldid=1138463464"